How can I add PouchDB to an Angular 5 or 6 project? I am using Angular 6 and I could not find any way to do that.
Yes you can use PouchDB with angular with this library
import PouchDB from 'pouchdb';
Here is a sample Poucdhb with angular project i came across.
You can use it as follows,
private db: any;
private isInstantiated: boolean;
private listener: EventEmitter<any> = new EventEmitter();
public constructor() {
if (!this.isInstantiated) {
this.db = new PouchDB('locosporalva');
this.isInstantiated = true;
}
}
Related
import template from './edit-date-field.vue';
This code is stop working , How to make it work again in vue 3 ?
let vueTemplate: any = template;
let instance = new vueTemplate();
and this is how i call it from another component:
EditDateFieldInitializer.InitEditDateField(element, date, dateChangedCallback, onEditModeExit);
This is the full code of what i'm trying to do.
It's working great on vue 2 but not it's not working on vue 3
export default class EditTextFieldInitializer {
public static InitEditTextField(config: EditTextFieldConfig) {
debugger
let vueTemplate: any = template;
let instance = new vueTemplate();
instance.$data.form.value = config.value;
instance.$data.onValueChanged = config.onValueChanged;
instance.$data.onEditModeExit = config.onEditModeExit;
instance.$data.rules = config.validationRules;
instance.$mount(config.element);
return instance;
}
}
I am trying to make versioned KV store of vault work with VaultPropertySource so that property can be accessed using #Value. However it is not working as expected. I am using 2.1.2.RELEASE version of spring-vault-core. The intention is to make it work with spring vault and Spring MVC.
I have already tried with #import(EnvironmentVaultConfiguration.class) to no avail.
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Value;
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Configuration;
import org.springframework.context.annotation.PropertySource;
import org.springframework.core.env.ConfigurableEnvironment;
import org.springframework.core.env.MutablePropertySources;
import org.springframework.vault.authentication.ClientAuthentication;
import org.springframework.vault.authentication.TokenAuthentication;
import org.springframework.vault.client.VaultEndpoint;
import org.springframework.vault.config.AbstractVaultConfiguration;
import org.springframework.vault.core.VaultTemplate;
import org.springframework.vault.core.env.VaultPropertySource;
import javax.annotation.PostConstruct;
import java.net.URI;
import java.util.List;
#Configuration
#PropertySource("vault.properties")
public class AppConfig extends AbstractVaultConfiguration {
#Value("${vault.uri}")
private URI vaultUri;
#Value("${vault.token}")
private String token;
#Value("#{'${vault.sources:}'.split(',')}")
private List<String> vaultSources;
#Autowired
private ConfigurableEnvironment environment;
#Autowired
private VaultTemplate vaultTemplate;
/**
* Specify an endpoint for connecting to Vault.
*/
#Override
public VaultEndpoint vaultEndpoint() {
return VaultEndpoint.from(vaultUri);
}
/**
* Configure a client authentication.
* Please consider a more secure authentication method
* for production use.
*/
#Override
public ClientAuthentication clientAuthentication() {
return new TokenAuthentication(token);
}
#PostConstruct
public void setPropertySource() {
MutablePropertySources sources = environment.getPropertySources();
vaultSources.stream().forEach(vs -> {
sources.addFirst(new VaultPropertySource(vaultTemplate, vs));
});
}
}
In the given code, if I provide
vault.sources=secret/data/abcd,secret/data/pqrs
then it works and returns secrets with data. and metadata. prefix. Which means that it is using generic approach to fetch secrets and not kv one.
If I remove data from path i.e. vault.sources=secret/abcd,secret/pqrs, it simply does not connect and throws exception with 403. This means that it must not be using kv v2.
Can someone please help me with how to use Versioned API of spring-vault in this code?
Key-Value 2 support using VaultPropertySource is not yet released. It will be shipped with Spring Vault 2.2 (see this GitHub issue).
Until then, you can use snapshot builds to verify the code is helpful for your use case.
Based on Mark's reponse above, I decided to use VaultPropertySource with PropertyTransformer until we get KV version2 support out of the box.
public class DataMetadataPrefixRemoverPropertyTransformer implements PropertyTransformer {
private final String dataPrefix = "data.";
private final String metadataPrefix = "metadata.";
public Map<String, Object> transformProperties(Map<String, ? extends Object> inputProperties) {
Map<String, Object> target = new LinkedHashMap(inputProperties.size(), 1.0F);
Iterator propertiesIterator = inputProperties.entrySet().iterator();
while(propertiesIterator.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry<String, ? extends Object> entry = (Map.Entry)propertiesIterator.next();
String key = entry.getKey();
// do not add metadata properties to environment for now - do not see a use case for it as of now.
if (StringUtils.startsWithIgnoreCase(key, metadataPrefix)) {
continue;
}
if (StringUtils.startsWithIgnoreCase(key, dataPrefix)) {
key = StringUtils.replace(key, dataPrefix, "");
}
target.put(key, entry.getValue());
}
return target;
}
}
Hope it can help someone looking for similar solution.
I am working on a native Android module for my React Native app. I would like to check if the developer mode is enabled and turn web content debugging in WebView on or off accordingly.
Here's what I tried:
boolean devSupportIsEnabled;
ReactActivity reactActivity = (ReactActivity) getModule().getActivity();
if (reactActivity != null) {
devSupportIsEnabled = reactActivity
.getReactInstanceManager()
.getDevSupportManager()
.getDevSupportEnabled();
} else {
devSupportIsEnabled = false;
}
Unfortunately, this does not compile because ReactActivity.getReactInstanceManager() is protected.
There is also the ReactBuildConfig.DEBUG property, but it is always false for some reason.
Are there any alternative ways?
An instance of ReactInstanceManager can be obtained by the package if it inherits from ReactInstancePackage:
public class MyPackage extends ReactInstancePackage {
#Override
public List<NativeModule> createNativeModules(ReactApplicationContext reactContext, ReactInstanceManager reactInstanceManager) {
// store the provided instance of ReactInstanceManager
this.reactInstanceManager = reactInstanceManager;
// ...
}
//...
}
This instance can be used later to check whether the dev mode is enabled:
boolean devModeIsEnabled = this.reactInstanceManager
.getDevSupportManager()
.getDevSupportEnabled();
I'm new in Zend, i had defined in my application.ini some lines to use multiple db.
resources.multidb.sitgm.adapter = "pdo_pgsql"
resources.multidb.sitgm.host = "localhost"
resources.multidb.sitgm.username = "postgres"
resources.multidb.sitgm.password = "pass"
resources.multidb.sitgm.dbname = "mydb"
resources.multidb.sitgm.isDefaultTableAdapter = true
In my APPLICATION Bootstrap i have a function:
public function _initDbRegistry()
{
$this->_application->bootstrap('multidb');
$multidb = $this->_application->getPluginResource('multidb');
Zend_Registry::set('db_sitgm', $multidb->getDb('sitgm'));
}
But when i had migrated to module squema, i have a default module, i added another DEFAULT Bootstrap.
class Default_Bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Module_Bootstrap
{
public function _initDbRegistry()
{
//Do i must add something here to access application DB conf like app bootstrap????
}
}
In this point How i can call the application config beacuse i am getting an error in my default model class which can not find it.
class Default_Model_Base {
protected $db;
public $sql="";
function __construct() {
$this->db = Zend_Registry::get("db_sitgm"); //HERE I GOT THE ERROR
$this->db->setFetchMode(Zend_Db::FETCH_OBJ);
}
}
Thanks in advance
You don't have to define the _initDbRegistry in your module bootstrap as well. You can leave it in your application Bootstrap.php
In Funq and probably most other IoC containers I can simply do this to configure a type:
container.Register<ISomeThing>(c => new SomeThing());
How could I quickly extend MEF (or use existing MEF functionality) to do the same without using attributes.
Here is how I thought I could do it:
var container = new CompositionContainer();
var batch = new CompositionBatch();
batch.AddExport<ISomeThing>(() => new SomeThing());
batch.AddExportedValue(batch);
container.Compose(batch);
With this extension method for CompositionBatch:
public static ComposablePart AddExport<TKey>(this CompositionBatch batch, Func<object> func)
{
var typeString = typeof(TKey).ToString();
return batch.AddExport(
new Export(
new ExportDefinition(
typeString,
new Dictionary<string, object>() { { "ExportTypeIdentity", typeString } }),
func));
}
If I later do:
var a = container.GetExport<ISomeThing>().Value;
var b = container.GetExport<ISomeThing>().Value;
Both instance are the same. How can I force (configure) them to be different instances?
If this is not the way to go, how would I do this in MEF?
I would imagine the key is to add the delegate to the container, e.g.:
container.AddExportedValue<Func<ISomething>>(() => new Something());
That way you can grab the delegate and execute it:
var factory = container.GetExport<Func<ISomething>>();
ISomething something = factory();
Of course, MEF (Silverlight) does provide a native ExportFactory<T> (and ExportFactory<T,TMetadata> type that supports the creation of new instances for each call to import. You can add support for this by downloading Glen Block's ExportFactory for .NET 4.0 (Desktop) library.
If you don't want to use attributes, you can use this trick (based on Mark Seemann's blogpost).
First, create a generic class like this:
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
public class MefAdapter<T> where T : new()
{
private readonly T export;
public MefAdapter()
{
this.export = new T();
}
[Export]
public virtual T Export
{
get { return this.export; }
}
}
Now you can register any class you want in the container, like this:
var registeredTypesCatalog = new TypeCatalog(
typeof(MefAdapter<Foo>),
typeof(MefAdapter<Bar>),
...);
var container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);
Alternatively, you could implement your own export provider derived from ExportProvider, which allows you to pretty much duplicate Funq's way of working:
var provider = new FunqyExportProvider();
provider.Register<IFoo>(context => new Foo());
var container = new CompositionContainer(provider);
Both instance are the same. How can I force (configure) them to be different instances?
Simply mark the SomeThing class like this:
[Export(typeof(ISomeThing)]
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared]
public class SomeThing : ISomeThing
{
...
}
And then you will get different instances wherever you import ISomeThing.
Alternatively, you can also set a required creation policy on an import:
[Export(typeof(IFoo))]
public class Foo : IFoo
{
[Import(typeof(ISomeThing),
RequiredCreationPolicy = CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
public ISomething SomeThing { private get; set; }
}
In Glen Block's Skydrive directory linked to in Matthew Abbott's answer I found something that seems simple and lightweight: A FuncCatalog. Download it here: FuncCatalogExtension.
Using the few little classes from that project I could now do this:
var funcCatalog = new FuncCatalog();
funcCatalog.AddPart<ISomeThing>(ep => new SomeThing());
var container = new CompositionContainer(funcCatalog);
var batch = new CompositionBatch();
batch.AddExportedObject<ExportProvider>(container);
container.Compose(batch);
var a = container.GetExportedObject<ISomeThing>();
var b = container.GetExportedObject<ISomeThing>();